PerspectivesA NEWSLETTER OF THE ASA THEORY SECTION﻿

In my last letter, I explored the different ways we do “theory” in sociology. I suggested that that diversity—not just of theoretical approaches, but of the very roles of theory itself—is a kind of productive dissonance, rather than chaos, at the core. The fact that these disparate projects come together under the theory umbrella—and that, therefore, the same people often read and engage with all of them—results in intellectual cross-fertilization that would not have happened with a more organized core. This mirrors my view of our discipline in general: if our weakness is the fact that we have no stable core of topics, methods, or theories, it is also our strength. The relatively free—maybe even chaotic—interplay of ideas fosters creativity.

To pursue this idea further, I decided to ask some colleagues who do “theory” in other disciplines what “theory” meant to them and to their disciplines.

UNC is a collegial place, and I knew many of these people through other channels, so I sat down with each to get a sense of how theory functions for them. I wanted to know two things: (1) What “theory” means in each of their disciplines; and (2) How theorists interact with colleagues in their disciplines. Here's what they had to say. I don't assume that each of them can speak for the full field of theory in her or his discipline, but each offers an interesting disciplinary perspective. Any mistakes in the paraphrases are my own fault!

Physics

(Louise Dolan): Dr. Dolan explained that theory in physics is distinguished from experimental physics. Experimental physics provides “data about the real world;” theory synthesizes those data. The point is “not just to have a bunch of information...but to describe what you see.” In particular, she explained that theory is most active right now in conceptualizing things whose size is either extremely small or extremely large. These include condensed matter, elementary particles, and string theory, which seeks to describe “substrata” of matter.

She noted that even the quark—the smallest particle yet discovered—might be divisible in the same way, even though it can't be viewed. In other words, even a quark might have a substrate: the underlying stuff from which it is made. String theory is a way of conceptualizing that substrate, even though it can't be seen (the smallest we can measure, apparently, is 10-17 centimeter, while the quark's substrate is likely more like 10-33 centimeter.

﻿"Theorists prize internal consistency and mathematical elegance because these imply a 'deeper understanding' of the questions."﻿

She described an interplay between theory and experiment, but also noted that theorists have preferences even prior to data confirming or denying the theory. Theorists prize internal consistency and mathematical elegance because these imply a “deeper understanding” of the questions. In order to gain and maintain prestige, departments need a mix of experimentalists and theorists; a department cannot be considered strong, be ranked highly, or recruit good graduate students without a distinguished theory operation.

Communication Studies/Cultural Studies

(Larry Grossberg): By contrast, Dr. Grossberg described the role of theory in communication studies and cultural studies as central; different subfields use different theories, but these theorists are also held together in part by reading “the same broad discourses.” Theoretical commitments are held similarly to political commitments; scholars identify themselves as being of one or another theoretical camp. Interviewees for jobs might be asked: “what's your theoretical position?”This is particularly true in cultural studies, where theoretical debates are the coin of the realm. “Theory is our method,” he told me, and theories are deployed pragmatically: “What is the problem you want to understand? What pays off?” Like physics, elegance is a value in itself; theories that appear applicable to many questions, or that illuminate old questions in new ways, are valuable. But unlike physics, there is little interest in data as confirmation or refutation of existing theory; here, theory's job is to explain data that are observed by providing a framework for understanding those observations.

Economics

(Pat Conway): Even before I asked my first question, Dr. Conway outlined the role of theory in economics for me: “There are theorists, and there are those who use theory.” Theory is a logical and mathematical approach in which theorists begin with axioms and reason from those to predict behavior and outcomes. For example, a theorist might begin with axioms about profit maximization and stable preferences and reason as to the influence of a given technology, practice, or regulation on the market.

"Theory is a logical and mathematical approach in which theorists begin with axioms and reason from those to predict behavior and outcomes."

Some theorists question the axioms, but this is rare; those questioning the axioms tend to be experimental and behavioral economists, such as those seeking to determine experimentally whether preferences are actually transitive. There are times, though, when the axioms change. Conway used the example of static utility maximization, which didn't “work” to explain the observed world, so dynamic maximization was a necessary “tweak.”

Meanwhile, disputes among theorists (including public figures like Paul Krugman) focus on how to incorporate different information such as productivity shocks and real business models. Krugman, in particular, is a theorist who seeks to understand macro-phenomena like financial shocks by reference to economic axioms and discoveries. Conway noted that these disputes can get very contentious: “standard playground rules for economics” can seem like nasty fights to outsiders. Like physicists and cultural studies scholars, economists like elegant models; extremely simple mathematical models that can be applied to multiple specific problems are the goal. Data are sometimes used to confirm or refute theory, but more commonly their role is to illustrate theory or to point to new theoretical questions to be resolved mathematically.

Within the discipline, Conway explained that theorists are the highest status scholars. They tend to come from the highest-status graduate programs, which in turn achieve and maintain that status through producing high-profile theory and theorists. Lower-status programs tend to be more empirical, testing and applying theory produced at higher-status institutions.

Political Science

(Susan Bickford, Mike Lienesch, and Jeff Spinner-Halev): Dr. Spinner-Halev opened by saying that there are three senses of “theory” in political science. First, in “conventional” political science, scholars consider work “theoretically motivated” insofar as it seeks to answer questions that emerge out of existing theory. Second, game theory operates analogously to theory in economics, i.e., a formal theory predicting outcomes given assumptions; he labeled this “positive theory.” Finally, political theory addresses normative and historical questions that have political concerns at their heart. There is very little communication between positive and political theory; one of my informants said “I'm annoyed that they [positive theorists] call themselves theorists.”

In general, political theory is carried out by theorists and in conversation with other theorists, though periodically empirical political scientists “believe that political theorists are saying something that can be tested.” I asked whether those times were good or bad for theorists. “I think it's fine,” said Dr. Bickford, but their mode of theorizing doesn't generally produce hypotheses so it's not the goal. Theorists are more likely to read empirical political science than vice versa, in large part because empirical political science is much higher status in the discipline and within departments. All three of my interviewees described this low status; departments have to have a political theory section in order to be ranked highly, but often political theory is “tolerated more than welcomed,” said one.

English Literature

(Florence Dore): Our interview began with my explaining that I was speaking with theorists around campus. “Am I a theorist? I don't know anymore,” Dr. Dore said. She continued by paraphrasing Terry Eagleton (a prominent literary theorist), claiming that we are in a “post-theoretical moment” which implies closer engagement with literary texts themselves. Theory without grounding in literature, Dore said, is “an empty project.” But trends within literary studies, such as the digital humanities and the turn to cognitive science, threaten to take the place of actual theory in literature. The impulse to translate art into science leaves “blind spots,” such as “disavowing the paradoxical” in literature and theory.

Interestingly, Dore identified her entry into theory as “backwards,” but described a path that was similar to the physics and economics examples above. She was working on research on music in literature, and in particular on ballads posited against technology. “Better read some Heidegger,” she was told, to understand the relationship. Theory, in this case, provided a similar abstraction beyond the object of study to that in much more scientistic fields. Literary theory remains a central focus in the field, but Dore suggested that the boundary between theory within literature and theory outside (such as philosophy and social theory) was porous, and that most current scholars writing in theory do so with a strong connection to specific works of literature as well.

“Am I a theorist? I don't know anymore.”

This little interdisciplinary tour around theory offered a few insights into sociology's own field. First, I could easily understand and identify with the approaches to theory each of my interviewees offered, even though some of them seem quite incompatible with one another. I think that's a function of the fact that sociological theory straddles the line between the humanities and the sciences, so sociological theorists can speak both languages. Second, the relative prestige of theory within each of the disciplines, and the degree to which theory is integrated into the core of the disciplines, varied widely. Third, and finally, there is a common thread among them: a concern with abstraction and generality that animates each of the disparate views of theory.